Senate Rule 38
March 9th, 2008 by Wiley CodyI’ve hypothesized before that Senator Jon Tester is violating Senate Ethics rules in the process of conducting a Senate Ethics Audit to determine whether or not he is violating Senate Ethics rules. That would be kind of problematic for him since the whole point of the audit is to show Montana how ethical he is. Anyway, check this out.
So the problem I have is with the nature of the service being provided Tester - or more accurately the cost of the service. As I’ve pointed out before, John Sheehy is doing the audit work for free. Trouble is those pesky ethics rules that gave Tester the nails to crucify Conrad Burns with also have something to say about certain work being done for free. They call it an in-kind contribution and it is prohibited.
Senate Rule XXXVIII (38) is a prohibition of unofficial office accounts. Sounds unrelated, except that the Senate Ethics Manual (pdf) has this to say about Interpretive Ruling 443 (from page 105).
‘‘Senate Rule 38 prohibits unofficial office accounts, that is, private supplementation of expenses incurred in connection with the operation of a Member’s office and the activities of a committee as well. Thus, private contributions of money or private, in-kind contributions of goods or services for official purposes are prohibited by Senate Rule 38.”
Of course, there are exceptions for work centered around the legislative process - the drafting, debating and enacting of laws. We don’t want to prevent a Senator from soliciting expert advice. But when it comes to the administrative aspects of running of an office - the stated goal of Tester’s audit - it’s pretty clear:
As stated in Committee Interpretative Ruling 444 interpreting Rule 38, however, neither official nor officially related expenses, goods, or services used in the operation of a Senator’s office may be provided or paid for by private parties. This rule provides a broad prohibition on the use of private resources to do the work of a Senate office.
So what’s the big deal? I mean obviously Tester is trying to do the right thing, right so why rake him over the coals with an ethics manual so darn antiquated that they say “XXXVIII” instead of “38″?
The reason that in-kind contributions are forbidden is that they establish a tit-for-tat relationship between the provider of the gift and the men and women elected to hold tremendous power on our behalf. Anyone with an elementary grasp of persuasion or sales knows that giving someone something for free puts them into a debtor situation where social norms drive them to return the favor - often times at a rate much greater than the initial gift.
The concern is that by accepting free services from Sheehy, Tester is putting himself and his staff in a situation where they may feel indebted to him. That’s the problem with “special interests” isn’t it? That individuals exercise more influence than Joe or Jane Montana. So unless you have something you can give or provide for Senator Tester, I’d be a little worried about that fact that it took less than a year for Jon to settle into the you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours culture.
